73, Oscar]]>Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:22:52 +0000G0KLA is a very accessible guy (I've been in touch in the past regarding PACSAT logfile formats). I am prety sure he could perhaps supply a special version for QO-100 experimenting...

You could try to contact him.

73, Oscar

]]>
…]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2020 19:42:40 +0000Based on the pictures I would agree that the skew angle is not set correctly, but above all I would not really trust that adjustable LNB arm either. It seems that not only the angle is variable but also the height? (since it uses a longitudinal hole) ?

Definitievely worth tweaking after you made sure that the azimuth is 100% corrently set to maximum signal.

When using the SDR in wideband mode (e.g. displaying around 1 - 1.5 MHz bandwith of spectrum) you should clearly see with your dish size at least 1-3dB noise level incease in the middle of the passband as compared to the noise levels seen on the spectrum display outside of the passband)

73, Oscar

]]>
Using my old BU500 (@ 450mW) and a 4-turn helical roughly aimed to QO100 gives -13/-11dB SNR... much to strong!

Then i used a old WiFi…]]>Sat, 04 Apr 2020 13:02:31 +0000Just used the free time and nice weather to test if i can reach the QRPP receiver in PY with very small equipment.

Using my old BU500 (@ 450mW) and a 4-turn helical roughly aimed to QO100 gives -13/-11dB SNR... much to strong!

Then i used a old WiFi omnidirectional antenna > -16dB …. still to strong to participate…

Next time i try with a dummyload

BTW: no problem with the TX frequency drift of the BU500 in direct sunlight

73s DB8TF

]]>SV1BDS

Your screenshots are too small, zoom also in.

The question now is, are the SDR's measuring accurately or is the PSK-beacon QRG inaccurate ? I can do a comparison later by interest.]]>Wed, 01 Apr 2020 13:29:02 +0000Hello George
SV1BDS

Your screenshots are too small, zoom also in.

The question now is, are the SDR's measuring accurately or is the PSK-beacon QRG inaccurate ? I can do a comparison later by interest.

]]>
It's fun to try every possible mode under the license privileges. Whether it is FT4 on a local repeater, you will learn something new. That makes the hobby going.

Seems this is agood starting point for qso's. Mny tnx Zhaofeng for FT4 QSO. He reportet 100mW , me still with 400mW. Zhao used a 60cm Dish. Mine is 90.

Was so dissapointed destroying my pa and at the end had so much fun.

Tnx guys.

73 Oliver

Display More

The next day I actually measured the final power reaching the antenna.Only 5-6 DBM...

]]>
In SDR #…]]>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:07:11 +0000Only now have I seen the noise and SNR information on Simon's website. I found the algorithm for noise measurement very interesting, in the fantastic SDRConsole software. Now I understand why we don't have SNR = 0 in the absence of a signal.

In SDR # it is necessary to have at least a part of the tuning band in which only noise appears to have a correct indication of the SNR, as shown in the following figures. It seems that this software searches within the tuned band for the largest signal (the signal S) and the smallest signal, which is the noise N, to calculate SNR.

73s de Roland PY4ZBZ

]]>
I set: FT8 / FT4 = .540 "Dail Freq"

I made over 65 qso's in FT8/FT4 mode so far on QO-100 and I enjoyed every qso.
It appears that FT4 is better because quite some stations…]]>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 23:31:24 +0000Now with the new band plan, the FT8 / FT4 activity will also have to move.

I set: FT8 / FT4 = .540 "Dail Freq"

I made over 65 qso's in FT8/FT4 mode so far on QO-100 and I enjoyed every qso.

It appears that FT4 is better because quite some stations shift in frequency during the transmission, making FT8 difficult to decode. Signals are not weak and that extra weak signal sensitivity is not necessary.

]]>PY4ZBZ
I am not the one who wants to be in the spotlight
but for this time I want to make an exception
Roland, thank you for the nice program
See also the E-mail I sent to you]]>Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:14:01 +0000PY4ZBZ

]]>]]>Sun, 08 Dec 2019 07:51:49 +0000Ok, Tnx, good idea. ]]>
：}]]>Wed, 09 Oct 2019 07:55:04 +0000For me is the most commonly used;Well, my English is not good, so don't understand too much what you said...I can only try our best to exchange callsign QTH signal report 73

：}

]]>
Final price per unit after postage and taxes was approx 25 UK Pounds each (28 Euros)

Before you ask, no there are none left as far as I…]]>Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:36:12 +0000A UK Ham recently did a bulk buy of about 25 units from UIY. Circulators with 30dB 100W attenuators on third port.

Final price per unit after postage and taxes was approx 25 UK Pounds each (28 Euros)

Before you ask, no there are none left as far as I know.

]]>
I think that the main problem is that there are some people that are very conscious about the importance of signal quality, but there are many others in the don't know / don't care category. Examples of…]]>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:43:10 +0000I agree with all of the comments made so far.

I think that the main problem is that there are some people that are very conscious about the importance of signal quality, but there are many others in the don't know / don't care category. Examples of "don't know" include not having appropriate equipment to monitor their own transmissions, not having technical knowledge to look for or correct problems (some may not be so obvious). Examples of "don't care" include not realizing that QO-100 is a huge asset that we are extremely lucky to have and what we do with it is quite serious, as it gives the world an impression of what we care for as Amateurs, and also being too lazy to do a couple calculations for the uplink frequency and tuning with a TX signal across all the band instead.

The problem is not specific of QO-100. I think that it just makes it clearly visible in a worldwide scale. But I think that there are other aspects of Amateur radio where the problem is worse. For instance, I once did a study about IMD in the EAPSK63 contest, and the results were rather bad (something like 11th harmonics at only -10dBc with some of the stations). The contest organizers did nothing about it.

To try to improve this situation, I think that all of us concerned about the importance of signal quality should try to create a culture on the bands. I should apply these recommendations first to myself, but I'm going to list the aloud here: when you see someone on the bands doing something inappropriate, just tell them and stress why it is important. Examples of this include when you are calling CQ and see someone tune across trying to reach your frequency, working a station with visible spurs, too wide of a modulation, signal stronger than the beacon, splatter, also low audio quality because of compression (even if the signal is fine spectrally). Just tell them politely but stressing the importance.

Probably there are some people who will be offended by the comment and try to argue back, but I bet that many other will be either surprised or interested and will like to care or learn more. Several times I've had a station with some of these problems call me and I haven't told them anything. Now I realize that by not telling them anything I am just contributing to the problem. Also, if you see a station with a really horrible signal, just call them and tell them.